Should You Marry that Rude, Stinky, Creepy Person Since You’re Not Perfect Either?

Once upon a time, a reporter for a major magazine declared, in all seriousness, that women should just get married already - even if it means settling for someone kind of repulsive. I wish I could say that it happened back in the Stone Age. In fact, though, the insolent story was published by Lori Gottlieb in the Atlantic magazine in 2008.

Today, Gottlieb's regressive, singlist, matrimaniacal essay, in expanded form as a book, appeared in print. I will take a look at the book if someone sends it to me (after I read the other books in line to be reviewed at this blog), but I'm not about to send any of my money the way of Gottlieb or her publisher. (To read a review by someone who did read the book, try this one from the Daily Beast. Thanks to Natalya for the link.)

I did, however, read the original Atlantic essay very closely, and wrote about it for the Huffington Post. Gottlieb responded to my post, then I posted again. Some excerpts from my original posts are below, together with links to all three posts and the original Atlantic story.

Lori Gottlieb, writing in the Atlantic magazine, has one word for single women of any age: Settle!

Settle, she exhorts us, even for the guy who smells bad or who gives you "a cold shiver down your spine at the thought of embracing" him. Settle for the man who has "a long history of major depression," is enthralled by terrorists, and is obnoxious to the wait staff. Settle for the guy so boring that you "preferred reading during dinner to sitting through another tedious conversation." Settle for "a widower who has three nightmarish kids and is still grieving for his dead wife."

HER OWN LITTLE WORLD

I'm a social scientist, and in the next section I'll show that Gottlieb is peddling myths about singlehood and marriage that do not pass scientific muster. I don't expect Gottlieb to be open to data, though. She's already gathered all of the evidence she believes she needs, from every 30-year old single woman that she knows. No matter how successful these women are, Gottlieb proclaims, they are all panicked about their unmarried state.

Now look at the line that comes next - the one that the Atlantic has turned into a printed shout-out:

"If you're a single 30-year old and you say you're not panicked about your marriage prospects, then you're in denial or you're lying."

Try telling a person who would say a thing like this that you feel differently. Gottlieb is creating her own reality.

She is also the mom telling all her kiddie readers that they must do as she says "because I said so!!!"

SCIENCE - THAT PESKY PROTESTER

Gottlieb buys into just about all of the myths about singles that I debunk in my book, Singled Out. She believes, for example, that singles are interested in just one thing - getting married. She warns that even if they have great jobs, their jobs won't love them back. She thinks that if single women wait too long, the available men will all be "damaged goods." Most of all, she seems to believe that single people are miserable and lonely, and that the cure for what ails them is to get married.

Science demurs. (This section continues here. Next, I reprint the last sections of that post.)

UTTERLY CONVENTIONAL

I suspect that Flanagan, Gottlieb, and their ilk fashion themselves as shockingly unconventional. Look at me, they seem to be saying: I'm smart, I'm educated, and I alone am daring enough to say what those deluded feminists will not - that a woman's place is in the arms of her husband. Even if he stinks - literally.

In fact, though, their positions are profoundly conventional. Women have long been told, even by other educated women, and even now, that they belong with a man. The more progress women make, the more insistent the message becomes.

It takes an utterly unoriginal voice to pose the question, "Is it better to be alone or to settle?" and think that the universe of options has thereby been delineated. It is also kind of dopey to think that women who are single are alone.

MY ADVICE TO LORI GOTTLIEB AND THE ATLANTIC MAGAZINE

I have some advice of my own for the Atlantic. In the famous words of Jon Stewart, as he stuck a fork in CNN's Crossfire and declared it done:

I wondered, when I first read your article, if perhaps you were writing it with your tongue lodged firmly in your cheek. I thought your article might be nothing more than Atlantic magazine backlash shtick (written more to roil readers than out of conviction). But upon reading your post, I'm concerned that you really do believe the things that you've said - for example, about how any single woman who says she is not worried is either in denial or lying.

Now I'm also troubled by many of the new comments in your post. My concern is that they were not written merely out of anger towards me, but reflect what you really do believe about people who are single.

Consider these, for instance:

Lori Gottlieb (LG) Quote #1: "If your definition of a fulfilling life is one that consists of three cats and physical contact only with uncommitted partners or the masseuse at Burke Williams, then put down the Atlantic and go stock up on kitty litter."

LG #2: "But please be aware that you're the minority in the subset of heterosexual women in this country who have never been married."

LG #3: "I suggest settling specifically for women in their thirties who do not want to be alone for the rest of their lives."

LG #5: "if it is not advice that works for you, so be it. Stay single...eat dinner each night with your single female friends (but don't talk about dating or men; who needs them?)"

LG #6: About me, you say, "I think she's got some, uh, issues here."

I'm especially concerned about these statements in the context of your comment that you are interning as a therapist. Look at the contempt and the scorn you are conveying about people who are single. I think you are saying (and I hope I am wrong) that people who are single are caricatures; that hardly anyone else thinks the way they do; that their friendships are worthy of nothing more than ridicule (even if those relationships are greatly valued by the single people themselves); that even with cherished friendships, single people will be "alone for the rest of their lives," perhaps because you believe that if a woman does not have a husband, she does not have anyone. Most troubling, I think you are saying that people who are single, especially if they stand up for themselves or for other single people, have "issues."

Lori, this is why I say that you are hurting America. Your clients will come to you for help, looking to place their hearts in your hands. Do you really want to convey to your single clients that, no matter what they may believe about themselves or their lives, your judgment of them has been predetermined, and it is damning?

Maybe you will succeed in concealing your contempt and incredulousness from your single clients who do not see their single status as a problem. Still, I'm concerned that others, too, may be hurt by your writings. Some single people take to heart the essays and blogs like yours. Maybe there are some coupled people who find justification in your writings for their own condescension toward people who are single. So, in my opinion, you are hurting America by perpetuating stereotypes and prejudices, and I think you should stop.

Gottlieb's suggestion isn't that crazy...if you want to marry you don't have to find that perfect person.
But she takes it to such an extreme...to advocate marrying someone who "sends a shiver down your spine"...that it ruins any usefulness the message might have. And it ignores the fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce, which can have some considerable negative consequences (more so than remaining single). Not that divorce is necessarily a disaster, but why go through that?

The other ironic thing here is that what's advocated here...that it's OK to be single, that you can be healthy and happy while singles, that for some it's the right choice...is hardly a crazy or radical idea either. Simply a variation on the notion that "It takes all types"
But it's met with hostility and snark from people like Gottlieb.

I read this book and I promise you Gottlieb never once makes that claim about the "shiver down your spine." I am not sure where this article was coming from but the book was honest, insightful, and used some backing from some social scientists as well. It was also common sense.

Gottlieb's suggestion isn't that crazy...if you want to marry you don't have to find that perfect person.
But she takes it to such an extreme...to advocate marrying someone who "sends a shiver down your spine"...that it ruins any usefulness the message might have. And it ignores the fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce, which can have some considerable negative consequences (more so than remaining single). Not that divorce is necessarily a disaster, but why go through that?

The other ironic thing here is that what's advocated here...that it's OK to be single, that you can be healthy and happy while singles, that for some it's the right choice...is hardly a crazy or radical idea either. Simply a variation on the notion that "It takes all types"
But it's met with hostility and snark from people like Gottlieb.

(BTW I don't mean any disrespect by using first name, it just seemed OK to do)

I admire your ability to stay calm and humane despite frantic efforts by the matrimania crowd to "get a rise" out of you. Dr. DePaulo is the kind of person I'd want to have chairing an 11th hour effort to ward off war between two major powers or other daunting situations. Maybe someday Bella can write an article on how she keeps her reserves of calm topped off, if only the rest of the world could be so clear headed...

With regards to the marry-at-all-costs crowd, Lori Gottlieb or others, what is striking to me is they seem to follow a pattern:

1) They put forth an essay or a study that purports to show marriage is the best thing for people. So far they're calm and civil.

2) If someone lifts the covers and says "ah, the data / assumptions here seems to have a problem" they do the emotional equivalents of a car going from 0 to 60mph. Their written replies have lots of exclamation marks and a lot of ad hominem attacks. They seem to seldom reply to the points raised, rather, they just attack the person raising objections.

3) If there's follow up they seem to get short/snappy and petulant. The data is still not addressed.

Well, all I can say is that these are the classic traits of a con man who's been found out.

Let me reiterate my admiration for Bella's almost saint-like humanity and fairness in all this. So often these things tend to be skewed toward favoring one gender over another, with snarky put downs laced throughout. But Dr. DePaulo's writings are scrupulously fair and hopeful for all people, which is just awesome. Thanks again De. DePaulo for all you do, I think you're on the right track, like Gandhi it can be more trying to have such Olympian calm but in the long run it does more good.

Logic, I totally agree with your comment about Bella managing to remain level-tongued, fair, and logical. That was the first thing I noticed about her book "Singled Out," when she describes all sorts of examples of meanness towards singles. If I'd been writing the book, there would have been way more exclamation points and swear words, and possibly tear stains on the manuscript. But by presenting her points in a calm, often humorous way, Bella avoids driving readers away (with the exception of people like Gottlieb seem beyond hope).

I also love your point about the behaviour patterns of con men! You're spot-on.

I read Gottlieb's article with alarm because I find any "advice" about getting married alarming (as if anyone can say what another person should or should not do in that regard), and most alarming are those who advocate it blindly, as Gottlieb does. And yes, her characterization of women over 30 or 35 or whatever was very insulting and not accurate. Maybe she should take her own advice and get married to a smelly guy she can't stand. Maybe we'll get a different message in the books/articles/movies/self-promotion that come out of that.

Really, I do believe that all of these pop marriage advocates are just setting themselves up to be tomorrow's "experts" on divorce, as they move out of their 30s and their client base/readers face the reality of the bad relationship decisions they made in taking the advice of people like Gottlieb.

In a way, I don't want to say anything more about her, though. Don't feed the trolls, as they say. And her writing seems more like a publicity stunt than thoughtful and compassionate self-analysis.

Read the book please. It never once advocated being with repulsive people you can't stand. It also makes clear that the intended audience is the single woman who eventually wants to marry and have children. If this is honestly not you, what are you worried about and who cares?

Read the book please. It never once advocated being with repulsive people you can't stand. It also makes clear that the intended audience is the single woman who eventually wants to marry and have children. If this is honestly not you, what are you worried about and who cares?

I don't know about the book, but apparently the author you are defending did say that single women should settle for 'people they cannot stand' in interviews or articles she has written about the topic of marriage. The author made those comments, or ones very similar to them, in an article at the Atlantic web site called "Marry Him! The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough."

That is apparently how she really feels, even if she does not make those comments in the book itself.

The author, Gottlieb, said in the Atlantic piece, "it’s [marriage] about how having a teammate, even if he’s not the love of your life, is better than not having one at all," which is a total crock.

I never got married. I'm over 40 year old now. There is no way I'd "settle" and marry some guy who bores me to tears, or where there is zero physical attraction just for the sake of being married.

I was in a long term romantic relationship that I got nothing from, and I was better off without the guy than with him.

It's better to be single than trapped in a dead, boring, horrible marriage.

This reminds me of what Bella hilariously called the "Adopt a Barbarian Program" in Singled Out, in which single mothers are urged to marry the father of their children, even if he's the absolute last thing any of them need. (It leads one to wonder how they hooked up in the first place, but these relationships are one of those mistakes that can have lifelong consequences.)
There's a whole world out there, and so many ways to live in it. If you settle, you'll never find the path you were meant to take! People who want to narrowly prescribe the way you should live almost always have some emotional axe to grind of their own that has nothing to do with you. Your happiness pisses them off, that's all. I had a writing teacher once who told me that if you never make anyone angry, you're living way below your potential. >: )

Either way, her worldview shouldn't threaten yours whatsoever. If you're happy being single and refuse to compromise for a relationship, keep up the good work. But please don't judge women like Gottlieb, who realized that she made some mistakes in her 30's, asked dozens of experts where she might have gone wrong, and reported the results, in the most self-deprecating and self-aware of manners.

Maybe you should actually read "Marry Him", upon which you'll realize that your bile is not being heaped on Gottlieb, but on all of the experts whom you think are selling women a bill of goods: Dan Ariely (Predictably Irrational), Helen Fisher (Why We Love), Barry Schwartz (Paradox of Choice), and many more.

Truly, Ms. DePaulo, reasonable people can agree to disagree on their respective life choices. However, without actually reading Gottlieb's book, you're invalidating her opinion and that of everyone else in the book (myself included). Perhaps you should get off your high horse and realized that there's tremendous wisdom in compromise... and that virtually none of the things you attribute to Gottlieb are actually true.

Feel free to join in the conversation on my blog, defending, point by point, against these emotional articles, mostly from women who have not actually read the book they're so harshly criticizing.

Dr. DePaulo clearly did read (very carefully) the original article by Gottlieb, from which the book was later drawn. I think that covers the due diligence part.

I'm a middle-aged married white guy, and honestly Dr. DePaulo's analyses (both past and present) strike me as remarkably free of bile. In fact it's her fairness that keeps me coming back here. I only wish Gottlieb, Stephen Benedict-Mason and others could be as benevolent and fairminded toward all.

SIngles who decry discrimination against them are often accused of being defensive/threatened. They are told, "If you were really happy you wouldn't be mad about people who diss your single status." This "mind-reading" rhetoric deprives single people of a chance to state legitimate grievances about discrimination. You would never say to someone, "If you're happy being black, that's fine, but don't go judging racists for their worldviews." Or maybe you would, I don't know. But I assume not.

1) "...or just trying to leech off of Gottlieb's publicity (again)?"
Your comment would have more credibility if the very first line didn't start with a personal insult.

2) "Truly, Ms. DePaulo, reasonable people can agree to disagree on their respective life choices."
Yes, reasonable people can and they can even do that without insulting the person they're addressing (see point 1).

3) "Feel free to join in the conversation on my blog, defending, point by point, against these emotional articles, mostly from women who have not actually read the book they're so harshly criticizing."
Why is it that single people are expected to defend "point by point" their legitimate life choices, when people like Gottlieb are allowed to spill their bile anywhere and everywhere?

I'll tell you what I get "emotional" about. People who don't even know me but who think they can make sweeping judgments about my life, my choices and my very thoughts.

My being single doesn't affect people like you and Gottlieb. Am I out there forcing you to be single? No I'm not. And you know why? Because I respect that my life choices are not necessarily right for you. Is it so very difficult for my life choices to be treated with the same respect? Apparently it is, judging from what I've encountered so far.

Interesting comment from someone who's been chumming the waters of his own blog for a year promoting Gottlieb's worldview. And who also appears to have a "high horse" of his own when the philosophy of settle/compromise or be alone is ever challenged there.

I have read way too many vile, hostile, hateful comments from [choose one] people/parents/idiots/matrimaniacs/breeders that are so full of name-calling, ASSumptions, bigotry, and hatred that I have long come to the conclusion that parents and breeders ranting to the single and childfree are vicious and full of hatred.

Ot maybe it's "misery wants company".

Whatever it is, it can't even compare to Bella's even-toned, research-citing writings.

I wrote a piece published in Heartless Bitches International about Gottlieb's ASSumptions. I suggested that all these divorced broads wanting to "settle" for a father for the children they bred got into their divorced situation by settling once (or more times) already - so didn't "settling" cause their self-caused problems in the first place?

I said: "With the divorce rate as high as it is, I understand the theory that a lot of stupid people have stupidly gone into stupid marriages for stupid reasons. And some stupid women have come up with even stupider solutions.

What, after all, is the definition of "settling", but taking action to pursue something that is not what you really want, and is not what makes you happy?

THIS is going to help solve the high divorce rate?

The notion that "settling" is an answer to the high divorce rate, and the mindless oblivion to the possibility that it is a *cause* of it, and the silly-girl foolishness of prescribing more marrying - instead of less of it - to solve a high divorce rate, is breathtakingly jejune, ludicrous, and vapid. It is the notion of a simpleton.

Yeah, our forefathers who were the early settlers probably got along by settling in marriage as well as in a new land - and our foremothers probably settled for even less happiness! Why people glorify a hard agricultural, slum, and sweat-shop life in which mere mean survival, illnesses, early deaths, and poverty necessarily took priority over seeking happiness in marriage, has always puzzled me. Keep in mind that divorce was less accepted then, but wife-beating and abuse was accepted and kept private as a family matter. If that's what you settlers want, go for it all the way; don't do it only half-assed. If you're divorced, you've already blown it. You should have settled like the real settlers did!"

These divorced broads must be slow learners.
And the ones who haven't been divorced or breeders who are still marriage-crazed enough to settle are just plain dumb.

There: Why should name-calling be the sole property of vicious haters, trolls, parents, matrimaniacs, and irrational flaming potty-mouth troglodytic illiterates who couldn't "marshal" a coherent thought if the city issued them a badge?

And why didn't these broads who push "settled" stay "settled" in their first lousy marriage?

One thing I instinctively dislike in many "marry him, sistah!" polemics is the thinly disguised use of used-car sales tactics. As in, time is running out, while you bite your nails trying to decide, opportunity is slipping away! Better act now before it's too late!

Meh, says I. This is old-skool sales pressure stuff. Create a sense of time pressure and panic, as this tends to shut off the thinking part of our brain and people are more likely to act on raw fear and grasp at proffered "solutions" from the salesperson. I like the German word for it, "Torschlusspanik", or "panic at seeing the gate closing."

This kind of thing may bounce harmlessly off of a steely nerved test pilot or a confident and intelligent person like Dr. DePaulo, but it probably wreaks havoc among many young women. That is wrong and immoral.

As a society we should never condone using sales tactics, explicitly or implicitly, to pressure people to make life decisions on a timeline of our choosing and not theirs. Further, if our society puts people into the situation where a decision is momentous and permanent, we should ask, does it need to be, really? Time was, when you picked a first job, that was your lifelong career, period. Does anyone doubt that life is better now that people can change careers?

Life has enough genuinely panicky moments calling for quick decisions (try driving in Rome, or Delhi..). But fear, panic and dread should be expunged from how our society frames personal decisions for young women and men. It's our moral obligation, really.

also @ bella the problem with singles "research" (anecdotes) is that while they may present manifest solutions, they still frequently misidentify their problems, which means that you CANNOT generalize the research.

It's like telling women to take tylenol for pain, not knowing that ibuprofen works (bonds) better, and that furthermore, acetaminophen is *POORLY* metabolized in women (estrogen blocks it? I'm not sure). You still might frequently get rid of the pain for people for whom it actually does work, but it doesn't mean that 1. you aren't also causing them a good deal of unseen, unanticipated, unnecessary harm; 2. it's going to work for others; 3. a safer more trustworthy solution doesn't exist. and that 4. In this case, once you start down one path, you have to wait for the effects to wear off from the first solution in order to implement the second safely and reliably enough to gauge the second solution's impact. AHEM.

Logic, this is one of the best analogies for explaining the problem with matrimania. I've noticed a lot of "hurry up and hook up before your eggs dry up" messages (I'm a woman) and deeply resent them. Who says that the best course for a woman's life is to procreate--or that that's the only course we might choose--as if anyone knows better what any one person should do with his/her life? It takes a lot to ignore those panicky messages and be true to yourself. I'm going to borrow your analogy, if I may!!!

> Who says that the best course for a woman's life is to procreate
> --or that that's the only course we might choose(?)

I don't think anybody's saying that here.

The explosive rise the last couple of decades in the need for expensive assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) suggests there's a fairly large problem with women who want kids having waited too long, or almost too long, to have them.

Conversely, the number of women who reach menopause without a child has doubled over the same time period, and there's sufficient reason to believe a substantial number of them would have liked to have had kids but somehow couldn't manage to figure out how to do it.

So I think Gottlieb is addressing a very real issue which affects a lot of women out there in the wake of all the changes over the last several decades.

Thus I'm surprised some of what she's saying is even open for discussion, much less that it gets some people's hackles up enough that they pull their axes out and start grinding away. It all seems rather elementary to me, almost painfully so.

Nevermind that she's in effect saying, however clumsily, that lots of modern women have figured out a way to mess up something as simple as having a baby, and now need to figure out how to un-mess up the situation. :>

I'd see the root problem a bit differently. The most gifted women have the most gifted children, and yet, our civilization desperatately needs the talents of these high IQ women in economic activity (just as the talents of high IQ men are desperately needed). The ideal childbearing years correspond to the same years that a gifted woman would be completing graduate education, post grad work and launching a career.

The solution, more or less, is to make it possible for gifted women to have a child without losing their independence or shelve their educational and career ambitions. The first society that figures out how to do this wins, to put it in bluntly competitive terms.

In fact a winner may have already emerged: the Scandinavian countries. women enjoy support from society to realize their full potential, marriage is relatively rare, and everyone is happier for it. The economic competitiveness of Scandinavian countries is excellent, increasingly matching or surpassing that of the U.S. and Singapore economies. Measured happiness in Northern Europe is the highest in the world, as regions go. Men in Scandinavia are healthier, happier, more muscular than in the U.S., and (my subjective assessment) are generally more "manly" than in the United States. They certainly are better fathers, unmarried dads in Sweden spend more time with their partners and children than married fathers in the U.S.

It is one of those paradoxical phenomena: the more one sets women free, the better off men are. And the better off children are as well.

I agree. I spent time in an abusive relationship in my late teens/early twenties, took time out of dating to heal and build my independence so I wouldn't stay in such a relationship again, then jumped back into the dating game at 30 only to wonder where all the single, available, commitment-happy men had gone. I'm still wondering a few years later.

Gottlieb is addressing the fact that women who want babies are missing out on them by holding out hopes for a "more ideal" partner. Society dictates that a woman should be married before she has children - *that's* why women are in such a rush to marry. Of course they don't have to as it's a social construct, but society elevates and punishes women accordingly based on their marital status. And women know this. Perhaps she's feeling some of that stigma now as a single mother, too.

Many women are involuntarily childless through being single - an incredibly painful place to be - and I think Gottlieb should be applauded for telling it like it is. My prediction: the next decade will be filled with books about how to handle the grief of being fertile, and desperately wanting to be a mother, but having no man to have a baby with.

The longing is excruciating, and society's ignorant categorisation of single women as cold, careerist party women who frittered their youth away on shoes doesn't help - most I know are cultured, lonely, non-materialistic, working because that's how you support yourself, struggling to come to terms with possibly never having the children they long for, and frightened. That includes me! I look forward to reading an honest take on the "Sex and the City" myth in her book.

Here's a new column by Ms. Gottlieb. I don't like how, in the opening paragraph, she conspicuously reframes her argument in a more moderate way, then acts the "poor, wounded soul" who the haters lashed out at simply for being "a single woman who wishes she were married." (as if that were are there was to the original article)

Still, the ensuing paragraphs she seem to back off of the term "settle" in a literal sense, and presents a reasonable argument more worthy of respect (although I haven't read the entire thing just yet). Here is is:

The worst case outcome is where people just shrug and accept their fate as marriage fodder. Realistically one has to expect a great deal of back and forth on this topic, cultural mores don't change overnight. I recall someone from the green movement a decade ago, summarizing the gains made and the work it took: "Change is brutally hard."

In this light, all discussion, even the ones framed in ways that seem a step backward, are a good thing. At some level, people are thinking. The rest will follow.

To Martian Bachelor: The Gottlieb article assumes that all/most women want to get married in order to have their own biological babies, and this desire is the reason she is urging women to settle. What Logic was talking about is the way Gottlieb/others use the "you'll be forever childless" bit as a scare tactic to urge women to marry.

In addition to calling Gottlieb on her singlist attacks, I think it's fair to question her assumption that all women want children or regret not having them if they don't or would choose children if it came down to a choice between that and career.

I would also question your assumption that women who don't have them didn't make a choice not to have them. To me it's obvious that on some level women without children are choosing not to have them. I know this goes against the stereotype of woman as breeder above all else.

If "settling" means having a more open mind -- as to hair color (no longer filtering out men with red hair, for example), eye color, net worth, height, race, etc., past psychological baggage that they've worked through -- then by all means, settle your heart out and find a great connection with someone with whom you can build a life.

But if "settling" means getting married to someone you have no connection with, if it means shoving a square peg into a round hole, marrying someone you have no respect for, then no, that probably isn't right either and will likely end in divorce and hurt both the settler and settlee.

What nobody is acknowledging is that there are dating skills and relationship skills that can be learned. It isn't just passive luck. Attracting potential mates and getting dates is a skill that can be taught, regardless of how naturally attractive one is. Screening for a mate that is a good match for you, getting a relationship off the ground and achieving intimacy, and finally sustaining a relationship after achieving intimacy are all teachable skills, though for many people these can take a lifetime or longer to learn.

And oftentimes before you can be successful in a relationship you have to succeed as a single (which is why this blog is such a godsend.)

Since she is interning as a therapist, I think it's great that she's gone online to expose her contempt for singles. Prospective clients (and employers) who Google her will have lots of food for thought.

Alan: I read your good comments on that dating site. The people on that site--practically all women--are really crazy to get married, so it's wasted breath. And that guy makes his living off of these women desperate to be married, under the guise of "helping" them with his "expert" advice--like Gottlieb's, all personal experience. His expertise comes from having dated 300+ women and then "settling" for one of them. I'd be very insulted if my husband spoke of me the way he does of his wife, forever hammering the point that she's too old for him, not as well-educated as he is, not ambitious enough, and perhaps not even fertile anymore, so he took a BIG risk in marrying her. He also says that her most endearing quality is that she "puts up with" him, he says. Quite an endorsement for marriage!

He's one of Gottlieb's interviews in the new book, and, from what someone said on his site, she does a number on this poor woman, too. denigrating her attractiveness and her age.

Who are these people, I wonder. I can't read about them anymore--it's too icky!!!

I was extremely respectful of your dissenting views on my website. Seems a shame that you should come back here to trash me.

So let's agree to disagree:

What you call "making a living off of desperate women", I call "helping them achieve their dreams". You may never want to hire a man like me - but hundreds of women have - and have been extremely happy with their decision.

As you pointed out, it's probably for the best that you and I aren't married. Not because I take exception to sarcastically being called an "expert", but because I wouldn't be able to be myself around you.

In fact, the highest praise a woman can get from a man is that he can be himself around his wife 100% of the time. For you to judge my relationship without knowing anything about me or my wife - just because you read a few lines on my blog - is absurd.

You're so bothered by the word "settle" that you seem to have missed my point that EVERYONE "settles" on "Mr. or Ms. Good Enough". The word we use in real life is called "compromise". I compromised on my wife's age and her ambition, which is a quality that I used to think mattered. My wife compromised on her husband's religion, workaholism and (clearly) know-it-all ways. Acknowledging this isn't an insult, as you say it is. It's the truth. And, as a strong married couple, we can acknowledge this truth - that we weren't what the other person was looking for - but we're happier than we've ever been before.

To clarify your questions about me: I'm a dating coach who took his own advice - and am blissfully married - which is why I feel so strongly about Gottlieb's book, and so strongly about the power (and need) to make smart compromises in relationships.

If this doesn't work for you, that's fair. I sincerely hope that you find a man who can be himself around you the way I am around my wife - a man who treats you like gold because he doesn't feel judged.

I thought it was considered unethical for therapists to tell patients what to do in a relationship (marry him, divorce him, dump her, go after her, etc.). If it's unethical for a therapist to do it, why is it OK for someone to hang a shingle, claiming some kind of expertise, and do it through blogs and "coaching sessions," like this guy does?

I don't know anything about Lori's husband or their marriage. They could have a wonderful and loving marriage for all I know. I just can't imagine being married to someone who thinks they settled for me. If they published a book about how they settled for me I would be even more hurt!

I have a good friend whose husband "settled" for her and their marriage is painful to watch. Their wedding was depressing and it breaks my heart to think that after 2 kids, this man still will never truly love her. I wish she hadn't "settled" for a man who "settled" because I do believe that if she hadn't married this man she would have either been happily married or single right now.

Assumes everyone wants to be married--and to him: "As you pointed out, it's probably for the best that you and I aren't married." Weird thing to say, seeing as I never pointed that out. Hopes I find a man, without even considering that I might be already married to one, in a "blissful" non-married relationship with one, gay, or not interested in getting married for any number of reason (a celibate spiritual path,a thriving and busy career, been-there-done-that, etc.).

And even though he writes about his relationship on his site ad nauseum, we aren't supposed to draw any conclusions from what he writes about himself and his new wife, unless it's "gosh, he's an expert on relationships because he got married!"

How'd you like the be the poor sap that gets settled for? Seriously, Gottlieb's stuff just insults *everyone* involved. And really, what makes her think that all the single women out have been turning down marriage proposals all over the place? Chances are those imperfect guys we all discarded weren't to keen on marriage either. All the other singlism and matrimania and other horrible stuff aside, I can't wrap my mind around this position that everyone has had plenty of opportunities to get married, we just pass them up. It's so bizarre, I haven't wanted to marry anyone I've dated, but they didn't want to marry me either. In fact, isn't it still a big time tradition that men propose to women? Aren't pathetic women like Gottlieb supposed to wait around until he's ready to make that big diamond down payment?

Once again, it's just the contradictory pro-marriage argument- marriage is the single most greatest and special thing in the world, and reserved for the "lucky ones" but if you're not one of the lucky ones, just go ahead and fake it.

It also makes me really sad that women like Gottlieb are so desperate to have babies, they don't even care where the baby comes from or who they're going to raise it with for the rest of their lives. I won't even consider whether or not I have children until I happen to come across someone I can imagine having children with. For me to create another human being, the other party involved would have to be really, really special. And if men are just sperm donors, as Gottlieb seems to suggest, what does that say about them and their role in child rearing? It's insulting to the men and it's unbelievably anti-feminist.

I actually did turn down marriage proposals and have had many relationships over the years. The thing that always surprised me with the men who wanted to marry me was the clear assumption on their part that I wanted to be married. The first two went so far as to say, "We could have a baby within a year!" As if this would be good news to me (uh, no.). Never once did any of the men ask what I wanted. What I wanted was just assumed, even though I never said anything to encourage that thinking.

(Digression: Guy #2 said, after I turned him down, "I can imagine you never getting married." Didn't have the quickness to respond with what I really thought, which was, "And I can imagine you having a horrible marriage." Which was why I didn't want to marry him in particular. If he was awful as a boyfriend, why would he be any better as a husband? Sadly, people like Gottlieb attribute certain magical powers to the institution of marriage, believing that it will cure loneliness, unhappiness, emptiness, meaninglessness, etc.--and turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.)

It would also surprise me when men broke up with me because they weren't "ready to get married," assuming without asking that I was "ready" and was looking for that.

I've nothing against being married, and I would do it in the right circumstance, but I'm not actively looking for it and never will. Wish more people could wrap their minds around this concept.

Simone- while no one has proposed to me, I have also been stereotyped by men who assume I am I just gunning for a husband and a baby. Most recently a younger guy in his 20s emailed me on my dating site, and I said it was interesting because guys his don't always go for women in their 30s. His response was that it's because they "know" that the relationship will be short lived because it's only a (short) matter of time before a woman in her 30s wants to get married and have babies, because of our "biological clocks." I really just hate being stereotyped.